From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 2-72

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 20, 2011
No. C-11-02833 EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2011)

Opinion

No. C-11-02833 EJD

11-20-2011

BOY RACER, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 2-72, Defendants.

Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Prenda Law Inc. Attorney for Plaintiff


Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)

Prenda Law Inc.

Attorney for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE ONLY AS TO ONE

ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ONLY AS

TO ONE ANONYMOUS DOE DEFENDANT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff voluntary dismisses all claims without prejudice brought in this action against a single anonymous Doe Defendant associated with the following Internet Protocol ("IP") address: 98.255.135.206. As noted on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs original Complaint (see 5:cv-11-01958, ECF No. 1), this IP address was issued by Comcast Cable Communications, and Doe Defendant was personally observed by Plaintiffs agents using this IP address in the particular swarm identified in this case unlawfully infringing Plaintiffs copyrighted works in March of 2011. Further, from other information gained through Plaintiff's agents' proprietary technology and general research, this Doe Defendant appears to have not only infringed upon Plaintiff's copyrighted works in this case, but also used the same IP address to infringe upon other works produced by Plaintiff. Plaintiff hereby chooses to dismisses Doe Defendant associated with IP addresses 98.255.135.206 without prejudice to pursue that individual in a separate consolidated lawsuit.

This of course, is not the only times this Doe Defendant was in the swarm, but rather the only times personally observed and his or her available information captured by Plaintiff's agents' proprietary technology.

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the Doe Defendant has neither filed an answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, nor a motion for summary judgment. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate.

Plaintiff still maintains its claims against the other active anonymous Doe Defendant(s) remaining in this action, and reserves the right to name such individuals and/or serve them when in possession of their identifying information in this case.

Respectfully Submitted,

PRENDA LAW INC.,

By: Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)

Prenda Law Inc.

Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 20, 2011, all individuals of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, and all attachments and related documents, using the Court's ECF system, in compliance with Local Rule 5-6 and General Order 45.

Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.


Summaries of

Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 2-72

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 20, 2011
No. C-11-02833 EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 2-72

Case Details

Full title:BOY RACER, INC., Plaintiff, v. DOES 2-72, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 20, 2011

Citations

No. C-11-02833 EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2011)